On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 22:22 -0400, Kevin Groeneveld wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Kevin Groeneveld <kgroeneveld@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> In fact all network drivers should use the _bh version.
> >> Could you send a patch for all of them, based on net-next tree ?
> > Sure, I can work on that. It should be a relatively easy thing to
> > update. I can probably send a patch within the next couple days.
> As I have been working on the patch I have been trying convince myself
> that each case I change actually needs the _bh version of the
> functions instead of blindly changing them. So far I have found the
> following where the change seems to make sense:
> The only two other places in the networking code that use
> u64_stats_fetch_begin/u64_stats_fetch_retry are:
This one is completely buggy, dont waste your time on it.
My plan for this one : dont try to have 64bit stats on 32bit arches, and
use plain "unsigned long" counters (if they are percpu), or
atomic_long_t (if they are shared by all cpus)
The writer sides might be run concurrently by several cpus, so
u64_stats_update_begin(&sstats->syncp); are racy : a reader can
be trapped forever.
Same problem for this one, I think.
I CCed ipvs maintainers so that they can take a look.
> Do these need to be updated as well? Looking at these files quickly
> and with my limited knowledge of the kernel I am not sure if they
> update the stats in a BH context or not.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html